Someone just paid 83BTC for transaction fee,

[lovesmayfamilis]

It is difficult to call what happened an error since it was made twice and the owner could clearly understand what he was doing. One can only guess where he got such a large number of bitcoins that he could just spend them. There is doubt about the honesty of these funds, and the owner was probably in a hurry to complete the transactions as quickly as possible, which means one can guess that some kind of hacking or theft occurred, and the Bitcoins might not belong to the sender.

[1714579370]

1714579370

[1714579370]

1714579370

[1714579370]

1714579370

[dansus021]

38 Bitcoin I dont think this newbie account and software default usually choose the best fee that matches to mempool but this is crazy 83 Bitcoin what a crazyyyy shitt. I think he doing it on purposes but what crazy person put 83 BTc in a single transaction

[Asiska02]

The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

If this was the case, I don’t think it was a mistake. It had RBF enabled and the sender later increased the price again which makes it more likely like a FUD some people have assumed it to be. Also, could be in haste to get the bitcoin moved out from the wallet which may likely not be for the seller, could be; a case of theft, fraud or related activity.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

I hope so too, many incidents like this have happened in the past and most of them are given back to the rightful owners that made such costly mistake after proving ownership of the coin. If your guess is actually correct, that means we still have more people that are not literate in bitcoin and own a large amount of bitcoins in their holdings till date.

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

If it was possible to even set a transaction fee that won’t be above the actual amount that is been sent out, cases like this would have reduced. But in a market where the amount of transactions fees determine how fast your transaction will be approved in most cases, it will not be realistic for this to happen.

[Fuso.hp]

The current market value of 83 btc is a lot so it seems amazing to me how 83 btc can be spent only in transaction fees. Maybe there is some miscalculation. If I think about it myself no matter how rich I am I will never spend 83 btc to do my bitcoin transaction out of the question I am willing to wait my whole life if need be but never spend 83 btc to do a transaction. Where one investor dreams of owning a bitcoin how come another investor spends 83 BTC just as a transaction fee. It sounds as amazing as it is unbelievable. Currently it costs three to five dollars to make a transaction so we wait for the transaction fees to come down further how can another investor spend that much.

[Luffygroove]

Someone with over 83 BTC isn't your everyday Joe, right? Makes you wonder, did they pull off this move while sipping something strong or maybe not in their A-game? What's the scoop? This isn't the first head-scratcher, we've seen blunders before. Even someone like me, not in the "rich club," double-checks transactions. Rich or not, it's baffling how they slip up. Let's snag a lesson from their costly mistakes. Remember, folks, don't dance the same misstep. It's an expensive lesson waiting to be learned. Stay sharp, and let's avoid turning our wallets into a crypto drama!

[Shishir99]

This is not a new type of 'mistake' and after many times, I started to think it is not mistake at all.

Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.

Your point does not make any sense. Who is going to waste 3.1 Million dollars just to spread FUD? Isn't it a too expensive way to spread FUD? Can't you think that the owner probably was using a new wallet GUI and he confused between 83 sat/vB with 83 Bitcoin? I am afraid, I do not agree with your point because it does not make any sense.

There are times mining pools allow senders of those overpaid transactions to provide proof of ownership and claim those bitcoin back.

If the pool is too honest, can't they send it back to the wallet where the transaction was made? I don't think such transactions are made from any exchanges since it was an RBF transaction. In this case, did Antpool announce anything yet?

[EL MOHA]

The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

If this was the case, I don’t think it was a mistake. It had RBF enabled and the sender later increased the price again which makes it more likely like a FUD some people have assumed it to be. Also, could be in haste to get the bitcoin moved out from the wallet which may likely not be for the seller, could be; a case of theft, fraud or related activity.

The RBF it self wasn’t enable with the transaction but it seems the mining node which is Antpool has the full RBF enable and that is why it was possible or probably it was done using CPFP which was shown by mempool.space.

Your point does not make any sense. Who is going to waste 3.1 Million dollars just to spread FUD? Isn't it a too expensive way to spread FUD? Can't you think that the owner probably was using a new wallet GUI and he confused between 83 sat/vB with 83 Bitcoin? I am afraid, I do not agree with your point because it does not make any sense.

Mistake will have been what we will consider but to some extent I still find it awkward, because after making mistake the sender still went ahead to bump the fee. Once you make this mistake your wallet balance will change drastically that you will know you made mistake but then why bump it again?

[tvplus006]

...Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

Few people can afford such a mistake, since not many people have such a number of Bitcoins in their wallet. For this reason, it is unlikely that any beginner can lose 70 BTC, because he could only see such a figure in a dream. But, since we are dealing with finances, it is necessary to carefully execute the transaction so as not to lose your money by mistake.

[BlackHatCoiner]

To the people who believe this was done to launder money: what money are you talking about? There is no concealing of financial activity, we can all view the transaction where he pays the miner 83 BTC. I'm not into the law, but isn't this counted the same as if he had sent him 83 BTC in a regular transaction?

If the pool is too honest, can't they send it back to the wallet where the transaction was made? I don't think such transactions are made from any exchanges since it was an RBF transaction.

- How's RBF related to whether that was an exchange transaction?
- The pool has the right to decide what to do with the money.

[Stalker22]

To the people who believe this was done to launder money: what money are you talking about? There is no concealing of financial activity, we can all view the transaction where he pays the miner 83 BTC. I'm not into the law, but isn't this counted the same as if he had sent him 83 BTC in a regular transaction?

Not the same. Since it was a transaction fee, it is difficult to prove whether there was intent or an accidental error. Therefore, it becomes legitimately earned money for the mining pool, regardless of where the money originally came from. Much like mobsters used casinos to launder money.

[Shishir99]

- How's RBF related to whether that was an exchange transaction?

I was talking about centralized exchanges. Imagine a user withdraws his money to a specific address from an exchange like Binance, since the user does not have control over the funds, they won't be able to use the RBF feature, and exchanges like Binance or others are unlikely to bump fees to complete the transactions. That's the possibility I pointed.

- The pool has the right to decide what to do with the money.

True. I guess I have picked a wrong word which is "honest". I should have picked "genereous" instead. If they really want to return it to the user who lost it by mistake, they can still refund it. But, if they don't there is nothing wrong.

[Cricktor]

It could be money laundering, though I doubt that because on-chain transactions are all public. There are no names attached to Bitcoin addresses, but you can always follow the flow of coins.

If this was deliberate then this obfuscates the history of the coins that turned into transaction fee. Doesn't really sound reasonable to me, too.

To me this looks more like a mistake of someone acting in a rush for whatever reasons because the transaction lacks a change output. And if you either don't understand that transaction inputs are always consumed completely and you don't want to send all of your inputs (minus a reasonable transaction fee) to your output(s), then you always need a change output that returns the excess of your inputs back into your wallet.

This transaction was also the final one of a small chain of CPFP transactions where the two ancestors had a bit too low transaction fee rate (64 and 119 sat/vB where the lowest fee rate of transactions in block 818087 appears to be 129 sat/vB; previous block 818086 had a fee span starting at 112 sat/vB, so 64 sat/vB is clearly way too low to start with if you want a timely confirmation). Someone got nervous or lost his mind while block 818087 took roughly 30 minutes to be mined.

Following transactions of the 55.76998378BTC combine some small amounts and peel of a bunch of 6BTC outputs which are further involved in some transactions, all with mostly optimal transaction fees.

[EL MOHA]

It could be money laundering, though I doubt that because on-chain transactions are all public. There are no names attached to Bitcoin addresses, but you can always follow the flow of coins.

If this was deliberate then this obfuscates the history of the coins that turned into transaction fee. Doesn't really sound reasonable to me, too.

To me this looks more like a mistake of someone acting in a rush for whatever reasons because the transaction lacks a change output. And if you either don't understand that transaction inputs are always consumed completely and you don't want to send all of your inputs (minus a reasonable transaction fee) to your output(s), then you always need a change output that returns the excess of your inputs back into your wallet.

This transaction was also the final one of a small chain of CPFP transactions where the two ancestors had a bit too low transaction fee rate (64 and 119 sat/vB where the lowest fee rate of transactions in block 818087 appears to be 129 sat/vB; previous block 818086 had a fee span starting at 112 sat/vB, so 64 sat/vB is clearly way too low to start with if you want a timely confirmation). Someone got nervous or lost his mind while block 818087 took roughly 30 minutes to be mined.

Following transactions of the 55.76998378BTC combine some small amounts and peel of a bunch of 6BTC outputs which are further involved in some transactions, all with mostly optimal transaction fees.

firstly i have to agree with you that money laundering will be absurd because with this high fee it will raise suspicion that will require looking into any associated addresses if it was it the sender will have maybe used even a mixer/tumbler.

now concerning that fee i am suprise now because the 83 bitcoin as fee wasn't the first transaction but the new transaction, the first one actually had a fee of 70 bitcoin which i showed in the thread which was why many people thought it wasn't a mistake. at first the replaced transaction id was displaying on the block explorer but now it is not showing probably because every node has dropped it.

[RapTarX]

It could be money laundering

What was the chance that ANTpool would be the one to mine the block? Isn't it possible that someone else would mine the block and thus, they would lose this huge sum of money?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Not the same. Since it was a transaction fee, it is difficult to prove whether there was intent or an accidental error.

Why does that matter? Whether you intentionally or "accidentally" sent a transaction, it is very much considered a payment from a taxman perspective.

What was the chance that ANTpool would be the one to mine the block? Isn't it possible that someone else would mine the block and thus, they would lose this huge sum of money?

Not if that was really intentional as they say. That person could communicate with Antpool and give them their transaction in private, so the rest of the pools couldn't be aware of it. (Even though one can confirm whether that happened or not if they're logging which transactions they enter their mempool)

[m2017]

As we all know the transaction fee continues to get high as the mempool remains congested for almost a month now due to reoccurring ORDI tokens on the bitcoin blockchain. This has left some people a bit furious and some newbies making costly mistakes of setting high transaction fees.

What can you do, this is how bitcoin and its network are designed. This must be taken into account when sending transactions.

A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

Personally, I don't believe it was a mistake. Now is not the time when you could make a mistake of 83 bitcoins this way. I wouldn’t believe it if this commission was even 8 bitcoins or 0.8 bitcoins.

Unless this person has hundreds of thousands of bitcoins on his balance sheet and for him it’s mere pennies.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

In this case, the sender had to be blind or make the transaction on the roof of a high-speed train, which is why he was in a hurry.

Antpool has the right not to return anything. A deal is a deal.

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

This advice applies to all bitcoin (crypto) users.

[Timmzzy]

As we all know the transaction fee continues to get high as the mempool remains congested for almost a month now due to reoccurring ORDI tokens on the bitcoin blockchain. This has left some people a bit furious and some newbies making costly mistakes of setting high transaction fees.

A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

1. TXID for the 83 bitcoin fee: b5a2af5845a8d3796308ff9840e567b14cf6bb158ff26c999e6f9a1f5448f9aa

2. The replaced transaction ID: 0c35f3c8a0c38f45629940ee9ab2b1c93d408be113845a735043261ad20f3351

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

This is a really huge sum if converted to Naira here in Nigeria trust me and at this current hard time in the country 😭😭 people still have such money to spend on a transaction menhn am weak. Like ehh this one really weak me 83BTC. Ahh it is well ❤️‍🩹❤️‍🩹

[Stalker22]

Not the same. Since it was a transaction fee, it is difficult to prove whether there was intent or an accidental error.

Why does that matter? Whether you intentionally or "accidentally" sent a transaction, it is very much considered a payment from a taxman perspective.

Yes, from the taxman's perspective, nothing much changes. But from an AML/CFT perspective, you are basically turning "dirty" money into a seemingly legitimate and clean financial transaction (revenue generated from a business activity).  Of course, its pure speculation that there is indeed some form of money laundering occurring here. It doesnt have to be the case at all.

[arhipova]

And here I am trying my bitcoin transfer next day to save 10 cents fee.

[hosseinimr93]

Someone claimed that the wallet which the transaction in question was made from had been hacked.


https://twitter.com/83_5BTC/status/1727996658758058120


And here is the message signed from the same address posted by the same twitter account.


https://twitter.com/83_5BTC/status/1728873072349069352